Book contents
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy: A Historical Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Reporting and Ascribing
- Part II Describing and Referring
- Part III Narrating and Structuring
- Part IV Locating and Inferring
- Part V Typologizing and Ontologizing
- Part VI Determining and Questioning
- Part VII Arguing and Rejecting
- Part VIII Implying and (Pre)supposing
- Index
- References
Part VI - Determining and Questioning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy: A Historical Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Reporting and Ascribing
- Part II Describing and Referring
- Part III Narrating and Structuring
- Part IV Locating and Inferring
- Part V Typologizing and Ontologizing
- Part VI Determining and Questioning
- Part VII Arguing and Rejecting
- Part VIII Implying and (Pre)supposing
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 335 - 380Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Alxatib, S., & Pelletier, F. J. (2011). The psychology of vagueness: Borderline cases and contradictions. Mind & Language, 26(3), 287–326.Google Scholar
Alxatib, S., Pagin, P., & Sauerland, U. (2013). Acceptable contradictions: Pragmatics or semantics? A reply to Cobreros et al. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42(4), 619–634.Google Scholar
Ballweg, J. (1983). Vagueness or context dependence? In Ballmer, T. T. & Pinkal, M. (Eds.), Approaching Vagueness (pp. 59–78). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2002). The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2003). Clarity and the grammar of skepticism. Mind & Language, 24(3), 253–273.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (1992). The kinematics of presupposition. In Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bobzien, S. (2011). In defense of true higher-order vagueness. Synthese, 180(3), 317–335.Google Scholar
Bobzien, S. (2012). If it’s clear, then it’s clear that it’s clear, or is it? Higher-order vagueness and the S4 axiom. In Ierodiakonou, B. & Morison, K. (Eds.), Episteme, etc. Essays in Honour of Jonathan Barnes (pp. 189–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobzien, S. (2013). Higher-order vagueness and borderline nestings: A persistent confusion. Analytic Philosophy, 54(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobzien, S. (2015). Columnar higher-order vagueness, or vagueness is higher-order vagueness. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 89(1), 61–87.Google Scholar
Bonini, N., Osherson, D., Viale, R., & Williamson, T. (1999). On the psychology of vague predicates. Mind & Language, 14(4), 377–393.Google Scholar
Bosch, P. (1983). Vagueness is context-dependence. In Ballmer, T. T. & Pinkal, M. (Eds.), Approaching Vagueness (pp. 189–210). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cargile, J. (1969). The sorites paradox. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20(3), 193–202.Google Scholar
Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. (2012). Incremental vs. symmetric accounts of presupposition projection: An experimental approach. Natural Language Semantics, 20(2), 177–226.Google Scholar
Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2012). Tolerant, classical, strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(2), 347–385.Google Scholar
Deemter, K. Van. (1996). The sorites fallacy and the context-dependence of vague predicates. In Kanazawa, M., Pinon, C., & de Swart, H. (Eds.), Quantifiers, Deduction, and Context. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dekker, P. (1999). Scopes in discourse. Journal of Language and Computation, 1(1), 7–34.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75(3), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, C. (2009). Iterating definiteness. In Moruzzi, S. & Dietz, R. (Eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Vagueness, Its Nature and Its Logic (pp. 550–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorr, C. (2015). How vagueness could cut out at any order. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, D. (1997). Vagueness by degrees. In. Keefe, R. & Smith, P. (Eds.), Vagueness: A Reader (pp. 294–316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Égré, P., de Gardelle, V., & Ripley, D. (2013). Vagueness and order effects in color categorization. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 22(4), 391–420.Google Scholar
Égré, P., & Klinedinst, N. (2010). Introduction. In Égré, P. & Klinedinst, N. (Eds.), Vagueness and Language Use (pp. 1–22). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eikmeyer, H.-J., & Rieser, H. (1983). A formal theory of context dependence and context change. In Ballmer, T. T. & Pinkal, M. (Eds.), Approaching Vagueness (pp. 131–188). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fara, D. G. (2000). Shifting sands: An interest relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics, 28(1), 45–81.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H. (2010). Vagueness, tolerance and contextual logic. Synthese, 174(1), 5–46.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Portner, P. & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings (pp. 249–260). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1990). Presupposition projection. In van der Sandt, R. (Ed.), Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes. University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9(3), 183–221.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. (1994). Robust vagueness and the forced-march sorites paradox. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 159–188.Google Scholar
Kalmus, H. P. (1979). Dependence of colour naming and monochromator setting on the direction of preceding changes in wavelength. The British Journal of Physiological Optics, 33(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1975). Two Theories about Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981a). The paradox of the heap. In Mönnich, U. (Ed.), Aspects of Philosophical Logic (pp. 225–277). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1981b). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., & Stokhof, M. B. J. (Eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In McCawley, J. D. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 7 (pp. 363–386). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keefe, R. (2000a). Supervaluationism and validity. Philosophical Topics, 28(1), 93–105.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(1), 33–70.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2010). Vagueness and comparison. In Égré, P. & Klinedinst, N. (Eds.), Vagueness and Language Use (pp. 73–97). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2004). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 2005, 345–381.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Kriz, M., & Chemla, E. (2015). Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language Semantics, 23(3), 205–248.Google Scholar
Kyburg, A., & Morreau, M. (2000). Fitting words: Vague language in context. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(6), 577–597.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D., & Savin, H. (1971). The projection problem for presuppositions. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 373–388). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339–359.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In Kanger, S. & Öhman, S. (Eds.), Philosophy and Grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lewis, K. S. (2014). Do we deed dynamic semantics? In Burgess, A. & Sherman, B. (Eds.), Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning (pp. 231–258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. (2001). Metaphysical austerity and the problems of temporal and modal anaphora. In Tomberlin, J. (Ed.), Metaphysics (pp. 211–228). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., Zehr, J., Romoli, J., & Schwarz, F. (2020). We’ve discovered that projection across conjunction is asymmetric. Linguistics and Philosophy, 43(5), 473–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelkern, M., Zehr, J., Romoli, J., & Schwarz, F. (2017). Asymmetry in presupposition projection: The case of conjunction. In Burgdorf, D., Collard, J., Maspong, S., & Stefánsdóttir, B. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 27 (pp. 505–524).Google Scholar
Pagin, P. (2010a). Vagueness and central gaps. In Dietz, R. & Moruzzi, S. (Eds.), Cuts and Clouds: Vagueness, Its Nature and Its Logic (pp. 254–272). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pagin, P. (2010b). Vagueness and domain restriction. In Égré, P. & Klinedinst, N. (Eds.), Vagueness and Language Use (pp. 283–307). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pinkal, M. (1983). Towards a semantics of precization. In Ballmer, T. T. & Pinkal, M. (Eds.), Approaching Vagueness (pp. 13–57). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D. (2015). Which concepts should we use? Metalinguistic negotiations and the methodology of philosophy. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 58(7–8), 828–874.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D., & Sundell, T. (2014). Antipositivist arguments from legal thought and talk: The metalinguistic response. In Hubbs, G. & Lind, D. (Eds.), Pragmatism, Law, and Language (pp. 56–75). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D., & Sundell, T. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13, 1–37.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 131–193.Google Scholar
Raffman, D. (1996). Vagueness and context-relativity. Philosophical Studies, 81(2–3), 175–192.Google Scholar
Raffman, D. (2005a). Borderline cases and bivalence. Philosophical Review, 114(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Raffman, D. (2005b). How to understand contextualism about vagueness: Reply to Stanley. Analysis, 65(3), 244–248.Google Scholar
Ripley, D. (2011). Contradictions at the borders. In Nouwen, R., van Rooij, R., Sauerland, U., & Schmitz, H.-C. (Eds.), Vagueness in Communication (pp. 169–188). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Ripley, D. (2013). Sorting out the sorites. In Berto, F., Mares, E., & Tanaka, K. (Eds.), Paraconsistency: Logic and Applications (pp. 329–348). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. (2011). Explaining presupposition projection with dynamic semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4(3), 1–43.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. (1991). Is there higher-order vagueness? Philosophical Quarterly, 41(163), 167–182.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. M. (1988). Tolerating vagueness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 89, 33–48.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. M. (1996). Concepts without boundaries. In. Keefe, R. & Smith, P. (Eds.), Vagueness: A Reader (pp. 186–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sassoon, G. W. (2013). Vagueness, Gradability and Typicality: The Interpretation of Adjectives and Nouns. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(3), 157–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serchuk, P., Hargreaves, I., & Zach, R. (2011). Vagueness, logic and use: Four experimental studies on vagueness. Mind & Language, 26(5), 540–573.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (1996). Disjunction and anaphora. In Galloway, T. & Spence, J. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 6 (pp. 245–260).Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 483–545.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (2003). Higher-order vagueness for partially defined predicates. In Beall, J. C. (Ed.), Liars and Heaps: New Essays on Paradox (pp. 128–150). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Solt, S. (2016). On measurement and quantification: The case of ‘most’ and ‘more than half’. Language, 2016, 65–100.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Stalnaker, R. (Ed.), Context and Content (pp. 47–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(4), 391–434.Google Scholar
Sundell, T. (2011). Disagreements about taste. Philosophical Studies, 155(2), 267–288.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., Kennedy, C., & Lidz, J. (2010). Meaning and context in children’s understanding of gradable adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tappenden, J. (1993). The liar and sorites paradoxes: Toward a unified treatment. Journal of Philosophy, 60(11), 551–577.Google Scholar
Tappenden, J. (1995). Some remarks on vagueness and a dynamic conception of language. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 33(S1), 193–201.Google Scholar
van Deemter, K. (2010). Not Exactly: In Praise of Vagueness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, R. A. (1989). Presupposition and discourse structure. In Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J. F. A. K., & van Emde Boas, P. (Eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression (pp. 371–388). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, R. A. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 333–377.Google Scholar
van Eijck, J. (1993). The dynamics of description. Journal of Semantics, 10(3), 239–267.Google Scholar
van Eijck, J. (1994). Presupposition failure: A comedy of errors. Formal Aspects of Computing, 6(11), 766–787.Google Scholar
Waismann, F. (1951). Verifiability. In Ryle, G. & Flew, A. (Eds.), Logic and Language (pp. 35–68). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (1999). On the structure of higher-order vagueness. Mind, 108(429), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C. (1987). Further reflections on the sorites paradox. Philosophical Topics, 15 (1), 227–290.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (2009). The illusion of higher-order vagueness. In Moruzzi, S. & Dietz, R. (Eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Vagueness, Its Nature and Its Logic (pp. 523–549). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H. (1992). Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. Journal of Semantics, 9(4), 379–412.Google Scholar
References
Aloni, M., et al. (2003). On choice-offering imperatives. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium 14 (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2009). Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. I., Roberts, C., Simons, M., & Tonhauser, J. (2017). Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3(1), 265–284.Google Scholar
Beck, S. (2006). Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 14(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
Biezma, M., & Rawlins, K. (2012). Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(5), 361–406.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2003). On d-trees, beans, and accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Maienborn, C., Portner, P., & von Heusinger, K. (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2 (pp. 2297–2332). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I. (2014). Question Meanings = Resolution Conditions. Slides presented at the seventh Semantics and Philosophy in Europe Colloquium, Berlin; retrieved from www.ivanociardelli.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SPE-presented.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Attention! Might in inquisitive semantics. In Ito, S. & Cormany, E. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 19 (pp. 91–108).Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives. Synthese, 192(6), 1689–1728.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Seligman, J. & Westerståhl, D. (Eds.), Language, Logic, and Computation, Vol. 1. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Grice, H. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 (pp. 41–58).Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F., & Hockett, C. D. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203(3), 88–97.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD thesis, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In McCawley, J. D. (Ed.), Notes from the Linguistic Underground (pp. 363–385). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Pruitt, K., & Roelofsen, F. (2011). Disjunctive Questions: Prosody, Syntax, and Semantics. Ms. presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen; retrieved from https://illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semanticsGoogle Scholar
Riester, A. (2019). Constructing QUD trees. In Zimmermann, M., von Heusinger, K., & Gaspar, V. E. O. (Eds.), Questions in Discourse (pp. 164–193). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse. In Yoon, J. & Kathol, A., & A., (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 49 (pp. 91–136). Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–96. Publication of a 1996 manuscript.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, F. (2013a). Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese, 190(1), 79–102.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, F. (2013b). A bare bone attentive semantics for might. In Aloni, M., Franke, M., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.), The Dynamic, Inquisitive, and Visionary Life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: A Festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman (pp. 190–215). ILLC publications.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, F., & van Gool, S. (2010). Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., & Schulz, K. (Eds.), Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 384–394). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofsen, F., & Van Gool, S. (2010). Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., & Schulz, K. (Eds.), Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 384–394). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Rohde, H., & Kurumada, C. (2018). Alternatives and inferences in the communication of meaning. In Federmeier, K. D. & Watson, D. G. (Eds.), Current Topics in Language. Vol. 68 of Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 215–261). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of Focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (2006). Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 23, 361–382.Google Scholar
Schulz, K., & van Rooij, R. (2006). Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(2), 205–250.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2001). Disjunction and alternativeness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 597–619.Google Scholar
Van Kuppevelt, J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 109–147.Google Scholar
Westera, M. (2017a). An attention-based explanation for some exhaustivity operators. Sinn und Bedeutung, 21, 1307–1324.Google Scholar
Westera, M. (2017b). Exhaustivity and Intonation: A Unified Theory. PhD thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Westera, M. (2017c). QUDs, brevity, and the asymmetry of alternatives. In Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Westera, M. (2019). Rise-fall-rise as a marker of secondary QUDs. In Gutzmann, D. & Turgay, K. (Eds.), Secondary Content: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Side Issues. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Westera, M., Mayol, L., & Rohde, H. (2020). Ted-q: Ted talks and the questions they evoke. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 1118–1127).Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T. E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 255–290.Google Scholar